Bear Down Wildcats

I tried to search for old topics about conference realignment, but did not see anything. Apologies if this should go elsewhere, but thought since rumors will only heat up in the coming years, we could have a topic.

To me, I love this. As I saw on twitter "more money, more exposure, less Larry Scott."

Interesting. Im in. Let ASU stay and we take GCU with us though

Several years ago I would have said bad move but not today. Better TV times, bowl tie ins, more TV revenue potentially.

Makes sense for the Big 12 as well. Gets them to 12 teams so they can do divisions and have a real championship game. Only downside is any game against West Virginia would require lots of travel.

Oh and less Larry Scott would be a huge win

I love the Pac 12, but the direction as a whole is going downward and fast. Larry Scott has sunk a great and amazing conference while laughing all the way to the bank and the schools can thank themselves for allowing him to do so.

I would absolutely hate this on an individual fan level, but as a general idea for the school and exposure and money it would be good since the PAC 12 is going down the toilet. Replacing road trips to Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Boulder and LA with Ames, Morgantown, Manhattan, Lubbock, and Waco aren't good for fans and Tucson culturally definitely belongs in the west coast. Meh

Crazy. I mean, think of all the high-level opponents we'd be getting in hoops and football. But we'd be losing some old, cherished rivalries. And yeah: Portland, SF, Seattle, Boulder...these spots will always be better than what the Big 12 has to offer.

I can't think of a single road trip in the Big 12 that is better than even the worst road trips in the PAC 12. I guess Fort Worth for TCU and Austin? Outside of those 1-2, the rest of the conference is garbage.

ASUHATER! wrote:I would absolutely hate this on an individual fan level, but as a general idea for the school and exposure and money it would be good since the PAC 12 is going down the toilet. Replacing road trips to Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Boulder and LA with Ames, Morgantown, Manhattan, Lubbock, and Waco aren't good for fans and Tucson culturally definitely belongs in the west coast. Meh

My exact sentiments.

ASUHATER! wrote:I would absolutely hate this on an individual fan level, but as a general idea for the school and exposure and money it would be good since the PAC 12 is going down the toilet. Replacing road trips to Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Boulder and LA with Ames, Morgantown, Manhattan, Lubbock, and Waco aren't good for fans and Tucson culturally definitely belongs in the west coast. Meh

This is spot on where I am at. I have a soft spot for the Pac. But maybe it could be a way to strong arm Larry? Until we see a change in the conference, the move makes sense.

I did hear that Big12 doesn't split revenue evenly. Is this true?

I'd be much happier with this potential move if Utah and Colorado came with us and the big 12 became a 14 team conference. Have a east/northeast division with WVU, ISU, KU, KSU, OSU, OU and TCU and a West/Southwest division with Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Arizona, ASU, Utah and Colorado.

btfd16 wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:I would absolutely hate this on an individual fan level, but as a general idea for the school and exposure and money it would be good since the PAC 12 is going down the toilet. Replacing road trips to Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Boulder and LA with Ames, Morgantown, Manhattan, Lubbock, and Waco aren't good for fans and Tucson culturally definitely belongs in the west coast. Meh

This is spot on where I am at. I have a soft spot for the Pac. But maybe it could be a way to strong arm Larry? Until we see a change in the conference, the move makes sense.

I did hear that Big12 doesn't split revenue evenly. Is this true?

You are correct, revenues are not split evenly

I don't think that would happen because it's an academic alignment, not just athletics. It was enough of a problem when the PAC-12 expanded by adding two non-peers, and watering down the whole conference. The Big-12 has a total of one peer institution: Texas.

The better solution is to advocate for a fresh change of leadership.

Longhorned wrote:I don't think that would happen because it's an academic alignment, not just athletics. It was enough of a problem when the PAC-12 expanded by adding two non-peers, and watering down the whole conference. The Big-12 has a total of one peer institution: Texas.

The better solution is to advocate for a fresh change of leadership.

Agree. Overall it's better to just gut the entire pac 12 leadership and start over

Longhorned wrote:I don't think that would happen because it's an academic alignment, not just athletics. It was enough of a problem when the PAC-12 expanded by adding two non-peers, and watering down the whole conference. The Big-12 has a total of one peer institution: Texas.

The better solution is to advocate for a fresh change of leadership.

So as someone who is not versed in this, why does the academics control it? Just curious how other schools being very good academically helps us. I believe you, just not well versed in conference realignment and academic money.

btfd16 wrote:

Longhorned wrote:I don't think that would happen because it's an academic alignment, not just athletics. It was enough of a problem when the PAC-12 expanded by adding two non-peers, and watering down the whole conference. The Big-12 has a total of one peer institution: Texas.

The better solution is to advocate for a fresh change of leadership.

So as someone who is not versed in this, why does the academics control it? Just curious how other schools being very good academically helps us. I believe you, just not well versed in conference realignment and academic money.

Academics definitely don't control it. It's more about a community of institutions where initiatives are modeled on and justified by what other universities in the conference do. There are historical reasons why the weaker members are in the PAC-12 (Oregon State, Washington State, and ASU), and the academically strongest members (Cal and Stanford) get a lot out of it on the athletics side. In the Big-12 and SEC, Texas and Texas A&M are the big academic fish, and it isn't a comfortable situation for either of them. If anything, those two should come to the PAC-12, but they'd never dream of it until the disfunction ends and Scott gets lost.

I wonder if this has more to do with California allowing athletes to get paid, meaning the 4 PAC teams here are playing at an entirely different level using elite athletes.

Greg Swaim is wrong more than my wife when she tries to describe football rules to anyone.

For better or for worse we will be in the Pac-12 for eternity.

Merkin wrote:I wonder if this has more to do with California allowing athletes to get paid, meaning the 4 PAC teams here are playing at an entirely different level using elite athletes.

That was my next thought as well.

Smells like bullshit.

Arizona
ASU
Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Nebraska
Colorado
Utah

Do that instead.

ChooChooCat wrote:Greg Swaim is wrong more than my wife when she tries to describe football rules to anyone.

For better or for worse we will be in the Pac-12 for eternity.

Maybe it can be used as leverage to get rid of Scott?

CalStateTempe wrote:

Merkin wrote:I wonder if this has more to do with California allowing athletes to get paid, meaning the 4 PAC teams here are playing at an entirely different level using elite athletes.

That was my next thought as well.

It's not. Other states and the federal government are doing similar bills

azcat49 wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:Greg Swaim is wrong more than my wife when she tries to describe football rules to anyone.

For better or for worse we will be in the Pac-12 for eternity.

Maybe it can be used as leverage to get rid of Scott?

Arizona threatening to leave the PAC is a threat to Scott? He'd probly willingly take a pay cut and sign with DirecTV if he could get zona out.

U.P. Zona Fan wrote:

azcat49 wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:Greg Swaim is wrong more than my wife when she tries to describe football rules to anyone.

For better or for worse we will be in the Pac-12 for eternity.

Maybe it can be used as leverage to get rid of Scott?

Arizona threatening to leave the PAC is a threat to Scott? He'd probly willingly take a pay cut and sign with DirecTV if he could get zona out.

Larry Scott can’t afford to lose schools. He’s hanging on by his fingernails as it is.

U.P. Zona Fan wrote:

azcat49 wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:Greg Swaim is wrong more than my wife when she tries to describe football rules to anyone.

For better or for worse we will be in the Pac-12 for eternity.

Maybe it can be used as leverage to get rid of Scott?

Arizona threatening to leave the PAC is a threat to Scott? He'd probly willingly take a pay cut and sign with DirecTV if he could get zona out.

Losing Arizona would further bankrupt the conference than it already does. We keep the non football side of the conference afloat

Longhorned wrote:I don't think that would happen because it's an academic alignment, not just athletics. It was enough of a problem when the PAC-12 expanded by adding two non-peers, and watering down the whole conference. The Big-12 has a total of one peer institution: Texas.

The better solution is to advocate for a fresh change of leadership.

That solution is too easy. The presidents are not that smart.

The Big 12 would never take both ASSU & U of A - the huge Phoenix media market would be a worthy addition to any conference, but not split between two schools...

... look at past conference realignments - you don’t see two schools from one state....

Longhorned wrote:

btfd16 wrote:

Longhorned wrote:I don't think that would happen because it's an academic alignment, not just athletics. It was enough of a problem when the PAC-12 expanded by adding two non-peers, and watering down the whole conference. The Big-12 has a total of one peer institution: Texas.

The better solution is to advocate for a fresh change of leadership.

So as someone who is not versed in this, why does the academics control it? Just curious how other schools being very good academically helps us. I believe you, just not well versed in conference realignment and academic money.

Academics definitely don't control it. It's more about a community of institutions where initiatives are modeled on and justified by what other universities in the conference do. There are historical reasons why the weaker members are in the PAC-12 (Oregon State, Washington State, and ASU), and the academically strongest members (Cal and Stanford) get a lot out of it on the athletics side. In the Big-12 and SEC, Texas and Texas A&M are the big academic fish, and it isn't a comfortable situation for either of them. If anything, those two should come to the PAC-12, but they'd never dream of it until the disfunction ends and Scott gets lost.

The Pac-12 has four schools ranked in the U.S. News top-25 (Stanford, Cal, USC and UCLA); the Big 12 has none in the top 50?

The of Association American Universities is very prestigious in academia: The Pac-12 has eight members in the AAU; the Big 12 has three.

pc in NM wrote:

Longhorned wrote:

btfd16 wrote:

Longhorned wrote:I don't think that would happen because it's an academic alignment, not just athletics. It was enough of a problem when the PAC-12 expanded by adding two non-peers, and watering down the whole conference. The Big-12 has a total of one peer institution: Texas.

The better solution is to advocate for a fresh change of leadership.

So as someone who is not versed in this, why does the academics control it? Just curious how other schools being very good academically helps us. I believe you, just not well versed in conference realignment and academic money.

Academics definitely don't control it. It's more about a community of institutions where initiatives are modeled on and justified by what other universities in the conference do. There are historical reasons why the weaker members are in the PAC-12 (Oregon State, Washington State, and ASU), and the academically strongest members (Cal and Stanford) get a lot out of it on the athletics side. In the Big-12 and SEC, Texas and Texas A&M are the big academic fish, and it isn't a comfortable situation for either of them. If anything, those two should come to the PAC-12, but they'd never dream of it until the disfunction ends and Scott gets lost.

The Pac-12 has four schools ranked in the U.S. News top-25 (Stanford, Cal, USC and UCLA); the Big 12 has none in the top 50?

The of Association American Universities is very prestigious in academia: The Pac-12 has eight members in the AAU; the Big 12 has three.

Yes. AAUP, and as for rankings, the Times World University Rankings is the one universities pay attention to. Arizona is currently ranked #20 among all public universities in the U.S.:

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/wo ... cols/stats" target="_blank

It wouldn't be easy for Arizona to just walk into the Big 12.

20th ís better than I thought. Arizona was ok the cusp of becoming a pretty damn good school (in the conversation with public schools like Washington or Texas or Wisconsin)15-20 years ago then budget cuts gutted it. Nowadays it really just depends on what specific program you're in if Arizona is a good or respected school or not.

Chicat wrote:Smells like bullshit.

Arizona
ASU
Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Nebraska
Colorado
Utah

Do that instead.

I always thought the best long term solution was a merger between the Pac 12 and Big 12 where the dead weight would get dropped (Oregon State, Wazzu, Iowa State, Kansas State, WV due to geographic nonsense, and probably Baylor).

would hate. Our identity is west coast. Our student population, outside of Arizona, is largely southern California. As a nearly life-long Arizonan, I do not feel any sense of identity shared with Iowa and Texas and WV, but I do with the PAC states. Even in the WAC, we were "Western".

I do not want a couple of issues in the short term with idiot leadership overseeing sports to cause us to abandon academic and demographic roots to chase better kick off times and a few dollars. I'd rather, quite frankly, be the school we are in the conference we are with that conference less exposed than to be partners with Baylor and TCU and the gimp of Texas...

Live in Austin and would love to see the Cats more, but agree with others this doesn't feel right. Leverage for ousting Scott makes more sense.

threenumberones wrote: Leverage for ousting Scott makes more sense.

The fact that any school would need to leverage anything to get rid of that stooge Scott says all you need to know about the Pac 12 and its potential to succeed in the future. If they can't see he is sinking the ship as it is, when he eventually retires on his own private Island paid for by the Universities, the chances they make a good replacement hire are small to nil.

zero chance

Look at the facts. If asu's name is on this it is not to leverage out Larry Scott. Larry Scott's biggest supporter and friend is still Dr. Crow

The only schools with leverage in this conference reside in Los Angeles.

ChooChooCat wrote:The only schools with leverage in this conference reside in Los Angeles.

and Stanford - those three, thats it

zero chance

Isn't the source of this rumor the same guy who basically said Miller to NC State was a done deal back in 2011?

tricat wrote:Isn't the source of this rumor the same guy who basically said Miller to NC State was a done deal back in 2011?

Almost
And Maryland.

Wait, we wanted Pastner? Lol

97cats wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:The only schools with leverage in this conference reside in Los Angeles.

and Stanford - those three, thats it

zero chance

Truth.

84Cat wrote:Wait, we wanted Pastner? Lol

No.

Greg Swaim regurgitates pure bullshit he sees on web forums. The Arizona schools to the Big 12 has been a fantasy among Big 12 fans who want to expand their conference and also a handful of AZ school fans who are tired of the Pac-12. There's literally nothing to see here.

84Cat wrote:Wait, we wanted Pastner? Lol

He did look like the obvious replacement. He was an alum who started well at Memphis. Plus, at that point, we were still viewed as a major rebuilding project.

tricat wrote:Isn't the source of this rumor the same guy who basically said Miller to NC State was a done deal back in 2011?

Thought it was a done deal until Miller got disgusted at lunch on how the Maryland AD was eating his hamburger.

You can tell a lot by how a man eats his hamburger

CalStateTempe wrote:You can tell a lot by how a man eats his hamburger

You can tell a lot by how a lady eats her hot dog. (Or popsicle).

UAEebs86 wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:You can tell a lot by how a man eats his hamburger

You can tell a lot by how a lady eats her hot dog. (Or popsicle).

Or corndog.

ChooChooCat wrote:The only schools with leverage in this conference reside in Los Angeles.

Good thing both are in the process of turning over completely incompetent ADs.

It would make for some heated basketball games.